Report of the Committee for Fungi and Lichens: 3 Author(S): Walter Gams Reviewed Work(S): Source: Taxon, Vol

Report of the Committee for Fungi and Lichens: 3 Author(s): Walter Gams Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 112-118 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1223316 . Accessed: 20/07/2012 15:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon.

http://www.jstor.org 112 FEBRUARY1993

Report of the Committee for Fungi and Lichens: 3

Walter Gams1

Summary Gams,W.: Reportof the Committeefor Fungiand Lichens: 3. - Taxon42: 112-118.1993. - ISSN0040-0262. The Committeefor Fungiand Lichensreports its recommendationson 15 proposals,one to amendthe Codeand 14 to conserveor rejectnames, recommending 10.

The previous report of the Committee was published in Taxon 41: 99-108. 1992. The present text reports on the activities of the Committee for Fungi and Lichens in the period Jan 1991 to Feb 1992 and deals with one proposal to amend the Code and 14 proposals to conserve or reject names of fungal taxa. Most ballots were answered by all fifteen members of the Committee, a majority of at least ten positive votes being necessary for a proposal requiring a change in the listing in the appendices of the Code to pass. If a proposal was rejected by eight explicit No votes, the Committee discontinued discussion. The votes are recorded in the order Yes : No (incl. Abstain): Continue Discussion. Those involved in the vot- ing were U. Braun (Germany, from 26 Jul 1991), B. J. Coppins (U.K.), L. Holm (Sweden, Chairman), V. Demoulin (Belgium), W. Gams (Netherlands, secretary), D. L. Hawksworth (U.K.), P. M. J0rgensen (Norway), L. M. Kohn (Canada, until 9 Jun 1991), T. W. Kuyper (Netherlands), M. Larsen (U.S.A., from 1 Jun 1991 until 9 Sep 1991), E. Parmasto (Estonia), Z. Pouzar (Czechoslovakia), G. Redeuilh (France), S. A. Redhead (Canada), M. A. Rifai (Indonesia), G. J. Samuels (U.S.A., from 15 Dec 1991), and J. Walker (Australia). The Committee voted unanimously against proposal (12), by Kostermans, to amend Art. 48 of the Code (Taxon 39: 539. 1990). Although this in no way is a "fungal/lichen" problem, the Committee regards the word 'explicit' as having an essential function in this Article. If it is deleted, it can never unambiguously be determined whether a new name has been created. The Committee recommends ten of the proposals to conserve, and voted with at least eight votes against four. Other proposals which did not receive either a two- thirds majority for or eight votes against are still under discussion by the Committee, and will remain so until such a majority is achieved. Five proposals had to be modified considerably before a decision could be taken, and bibliographic references are added in the appropriate places. For other references the original proposals should be consulted.

(674) Conserve Hyphodontia J. Erikss. against Kneiffiella P. Karst. (proposed by Eriksson & al. in Taxon 31: 744. 1982). Published comment: Burdsall & Larsen (1983). Votes: 12: 3: 0 (recommended as modified). The confusion around generic names in the Corticiaceae is greater than anti- cipated in the proposal. Hyphodontia is sufficiently large (more than 40 species,

1 Centraalbureauvoor Schimmelcultures, P. 0. Box 273, NL-3740AG Baarn,The Netherlands. TAXONVOLUME 42 113 including some important wood decayers) and widespread to justify conservation. But several additional competing generic names had to be screened by the Commit- tee, following a series of publications listed below.

Grandinia Fries (1838) was reintroduced by Jtilich (1982, 1983) who found that type material of Thelephora granulosa preserved at Leiden (L) represented a Hypho- dontia. But a reintroduction of Grandinia is not found desirable. Grandinia was erected on seven species. Donk (1956, q.v. for furtherreferences) reviewed its lectotypification. The first species mentioned by Fries, G. polycocca Fr., of doubtful identity, was selected as type by Banker and Miller & Boyle under the American Code. Clements & Shear had selected G. granulosa Fr., the most common species among those listed by Fries, as the type; a specimen in Fries's herbarium has been classified in Asterostromella Hohn. & Litsch. (= Vararia P. Karst.), but this identi- fication conflicts with the protologue (Donk, 1956), and Rogers & Jackson, based on Fries's interpretation, regarded Thelephora (Grandinia) granulosa as a nomen du- bium. Until the 1950s, Grandinia was a well-known name for a genus which Bourdot & Galzin (1928) had vaguely characterizedby blunt or pointed denticles and lack of cystidia and cystidioles, thus being different from Hyphodontia. Grandinia granulosa (Pers. : Fr.) Fr. sensu Bourdot & Galzin was redescribed by Pouzar (1982) who showed that it belonged to Vararia and had to be renamed Vararia borealis. It was only Jtilich (1983) who examined Persoon's original material of Thelephora granulosa Pers. : Fr. at Leiden and found it to be identical with Hyphodontia aspera (Fr.) J. Erikss. Jtilich's typification of Thelephora granulosa Pers. might be considered as arbitraryby some, especially in the light of Art. 7.20 and the existence of a specimen in UPS that conforms to the (second) sanctioning description in Fries (1828: 217).

Lyomyces P. Karst. was mentioned by Jtilich (1983) as possibly congeneric with Hyphodontia. The name has often been lectotypified with L. roseus (Pers. : Fr.) P. Karst., which is a species of Laeticorticium Donk (Corticium Pers. s. str.) (Donk, 1957; Eriksson & Hjortstam, 1983), because this is one of the two species later retained in the genus by Karsten (see Donk, 1957). But the only species originally included in the genus, L. serus (Pers.) P. Karst., is the same as Thelephora sambuci Pers., which has been included in Hyphodontia as H. sambuci (Pers.) J. Erikss.

Hyphodontia, when originally published, was a superfluous name as it included Hydnum barba-jovis, which is the original type of the earlier Kneiffiella P. Karst. Hydnum barba-jovis Bull.: Fr. was neotypified by Jtilich (1984), according to the original diagnosis, with a specimen that fits in Hyphodontia. Later Karsten became aware that the material he had so named had been misidentified, and he renamed it K. bombycina P. Karst., a tomentelloid fungus now known as Tomentellina bombycina (P. Karst.) Bourdot & Galzin. Therefore, before Jtilich & Stalpers, Kneiffiella has never been used for species of Hyphodontia and its resurrection in this sense is undesirable.

Chaetoporellus Bondartsev & Singer was discussed by Donk (1967) and Jtilich (1982). Its type, C. latitans (Bourdot & Galzin) Bondartsev & Singer, a rare species, may be regarded as a member of Hyphodontia (Eriksson & Hjortstam, 1983). Sub- sequently the name Chaetoporellus has not been used. 114 FEBRUARY1993

The new entry in App. lilA should read: Hyphodontia John Eriksson, Symb. Bot. Upsal. 16(1): 101. 1958. T.: H. pallidula (G. Bresadola) John Eriksson (Gonatobotrys pallidula G. Bre- sadola). (=) GrandiniaFries, Epicr. Syst. Mycol. 527. 1838. LT.: Thelephora granulosa Persoon: Fries (vide Clements & Shear, Gen. Fung., ed. 2: 346. 1931). (=) Lyomyces P. Karsten, Rev. Mycol. (Toulouse) 3(9): 23. 1881 ("Lyomices"). T.: L. serus (Persoon) P. Karsten (Hydnumserum Persoon). (=) Kneiffiella P. Karsten, Bidrag Kannedom Finlands Natur Folk 48: 371. 1889. T.: K. barba-jovis (Bulliard: Fries) P. Karsten (Hydnum barba-jovis Bulliard: Fries). (=) Chaetoporellus Bondartsev & Singer, Mycologia 36: 67. 1944. T.: Chaetoporellus latitans (Bourdot & Galzin) Bondartsev & Singer (Poria latitans Bourdot & Galzin).

(847) Conserve Lepiota (Pers.) Gray with a conserved type, L. cristata (proposed by Rauschert in Taxon 35: 738-740. 1986). Votes: general desirability of conserving the name Lepiota as distinct from Macrolepiota: 13:2:0 (recommended as modified). Ten members voted for changing the proposed type from L. cristata to Agaricus colubrinus or A. clypeolarius. Macrolepiota is too different from Lepiota to be merged with it (see also Romag- nesi, 1990). The type of Lepiota would be L. procera unless conserved otherwise. The original proposal with L. cristata as conserved type is not the best solution. There are two reasons for preferring L. colubrina as type for Lepiota instead of L. cristata. First, selection of L. colubrina will not upset sectional nomenclature; sec- ondly, L. cristata is also the type of Lepiotula (Maire) Horak. Therefore one of the remaining original species deserves preference. Agaricus colubrinus Pers. is a later homonym of A. colubrinus Bull., a synonym of Lepiota procera (its epithet appar- ently alluding to the snake-like ornamentation of the stipe), and is homotypic with the sanctioned A. clypeolarius Bull. : Fr. (both being based on Plate 405 of Bulliard). A. colubrinus Pers. even though listed as the conserved type of Lepiota, remains illegitimate and is homotypic with the legitimate and correct name L. clypeolaria (Bull.: Fr.) Kummer, designating a well-known taxon that happens to have a central position in the genus as presently understood. The new entry in App. IIA should read: Lepiota (Persoon) S. F. Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. P1. 1: 601. 1821. (Agaricus sect. Lepiota Persoon, Tent. Disp. Meth. 68. 1797). T.: Agaricus colubrinus Persoon non Bulliard (L. clypeolaria (Bulliard: Fries) Kummer, Agaricus clypeolarius Bulliard: Fries) (typ. cons.).

(861) Conserve Hexagona Fr. against Hexagonia Pollini (proposed by Ryvarden in Taxon 36: 160. 1987). Votes: 10: 5: 0 (recommended as modified). The Committee takes the view that Fries did not intend to create a new genus Hexagonia Fr., only to emend Hexagonia Pollini. But by analogy to Art. 14 Ex. 6 he is nevertheless considered the author of a homonym. Fries (1838: 496) unequivocally attributed Hexagona [sic] to Pollini and included the original type, H. mori. He TAXONVOLUME 42 115 clearly made a mistake when forgetting the i in the genus name. Donk's studies (1969) refute Kauffmann Fidalgo (1968). The Committee accepts Donk's arguments for preferring H. hirta (Beauv.: Fr.) Fr. to H. crinigera Fr. as conserved type. H. hirta and H. crinigera are normally considered taxonomic synonyms. H. hirta pos- sesses a holotype, which is not the case with H. crinigera, and it is the correct name of the taxon. Donk (e.g. 1969: 663) and Kreisel (1969: 175, pl. 6) considered Sceni- dium to be the correct name for polypores related to H. hirta. Scenidium has been used by others than Kuntze and Jiilich, but it is not really "in current use". Even if Hexagonia is a small genus, some species are sufficiently striking and common and the name has been so generally used that a case for conservation is acceptable. The Committee disapproves the original proposal because of the choice of H. crinigera instead of H. hirta as type, and of the spelling Hexagona instead of Hexagonia. The modification involving the conservation of Hexagonia Fr. with a new type (H. hirta) is preferred.The entry in App. IIIA should read: Hexagonia Fries, Epicr. Syst. Mycol. 496. 1838 ("Hexagona"). T.: H. hirta (Beauv6rie: Fries) Fries (Favolus hirtus Beauvrie : Fries) (typ. cons.). (H) Hexagonia Pollini, Hort. Veron. P1. Nov. 35. 1816 [FUNGI]. T.: H. mori Pollini.

(894) Conserve Gyalideopsis Vezda against Diploschistella Vainio (proposed by Lumbsch & Hawksworth in Taxon 36: 764-765. 1987). Votes: 10: 4: 0 (recommended). When he described Gyalideopsis from Europe, Vezda could not possibly have come across and checked a unispecific genus of uncertain affinity from South Africa, Diploschistella, thus his genus was not established as a result of bad taxonomy. The genus has proved to be large (now about 30 species) and widespread. It is frequently mentioned in recent literature and is biologically interesting. Conservation of Gyali- deopsis is clearly in the interest of nomenclaturalstability.

(907) Conserve Aspicilia Massal. against several names (proposed by Laundon & Hawksworth in Taxon 37: 478-479. 1988). Votes: 13:2:0 (recommended as modified). Typification had to be settled before the proposal could be considered. The type of the species name representing the generic type is a very poor illustration which can be interpreted as representing different species. As generic names may now be typified on specimens used by the author when describing the genus, Schaerer's exsiccata (obviously the second edition) No. 125 and No. 127, cited by Massalongo, were considered for typification. Specimens of Schaerer 125 and 127 in different herbaria have been checked. The exsiccata of either number are so far found to be uniform, and No. 127 is best developed. Schaerer 125 and 127 are congeneric but belong to different species of Aspicilia s. str.: 125 to A. caesiocinerea, 127 to A. cinerea. Laundon, the original proposer, supports J0rgensen's (pers. comm.) sugges- tion to adopt Schaerer 127 (VER) as the conserved type. The entry of the conserved name in App. IIIA should read: 116 FEBRUARY1993

Aspicilia Massalongo, Ric. Auton. Lich. Crost. 36. 1852. T.: "Urceolaria cinerea p alba" Schaerer, Lich. Helv. Exs., ed. 2, Fasc. 6: No. 127 (VER) (typ. cons.) [= Aspicilia cinerea (Linnaeus) K6rber, Lichen cinereus Linnaeus]. (=) [Rejected names as in original proposal].

(908) Conserve Parmeliopsis (Nyl.) Nyl. with a conserved type, P. ambigua (proposed by J0rgensen in Taxon 37: 479-480. 1988). Votes: 12:1:1 (recommended). The Committee supports the view that Nylander implicitly holotypified Parme- liopsis with P. placorodia. If this were not the case, the choice of P. ambigua by Clements & Shear would solve all problems, and conservation would be superfluous. Both usages of the genus name are now current. This typification is preferred over that in Prop. (942).

(934) Add Coniangium Fr. to the names rejected against Arthonia Ach., nom. cons. (proposed by Hawksworth & David in Taxon 38: 493-494. 1988). Votes: 5: 9: 0 (not recommended). Coniangium Fr. was a nomen nudum in Fries's Systema and was validated only later in 1821 in a separate paper by Fries. Coniangium, being nomenclaturally nonexistent on 1 Jan 1821, cannot be regarded as sanctioned, and does not therefore threatenArthonia. The proposal is unnecessary.

(940) Conserve Monographos Fuckel with a conserved type, M. fuckelii (proposed by Hawksworth & David in Taxon 38: 496. 1989). Votes: 5 : 9:0 (not recommended). The Committee remains unconvinced that conservation of the name of a genus with two species without importance in plant pathology etc. is justified. Moreover, Monographos was introduced for a misidentified fungus.

(941) Conserve the spelling Mycoblastus Norman instead of Mykoblastus (proposed by Hawksworth & David in Taxon 38: 496. 1989). Votes: 10: 4: 0 (recommended). The Committee regretfully agrees that it is not possible to correct an incorrectly Latinized name in a simpler way. According to Art. 14.10, incorrect and correct transliterationsmay both be interpretedas "particularorthographies".

(942) Conserve Parmeliopsis (Nyl.) Nyl. with a conserved type, P. placorodia (proposed by Hawksworth & David in Taxon 38: 497. 1989). Votes: 0: 12: 2 (not recommended). See Prop. (908).

(943) Conserve Schaereria Th. Fr. against Schaereria K6rb. (proposed by Hawks- worth & David in Taxon 38: 497. 1989). Votes 13-1-0 (recommended as modified). Korber's new genus, Schaereria, was based on a specimen misidentified as Leci- dea lugubris Sommerfelt. As Art. 14.3 permits the conservation of generic names as typified by specimens, it is desirable to conserve Schaereria Korb. based on one of TAXONVOLUME 42 117 the original specimens used by the author. Rather than designating L. cinereorufa Schaer. as type, as had been proposed, the Committee prefers to list an original specimen as the conserved type: the specimen, in Munich (M), erroneously labelled Schaereria lugubris, from Falkenstein, leg. Krempelhuber, which is a duplicate of one of the specimens cited by Korber. This clearly belongs to Schaereria cinereorufa. The entry in App. IIIA should read: Schaereria K6rber, Syst. Lich. Germ. 232. 1855. T.: "Schaereria lugubris" Falkenstein, Krempelhuber, (M) (typ. cons.) [= Schaereria cinereorufa Schaerer].

(945) Conserve Micarea Fr. (Dec 1825) against Micarea Fr. (ante Mai 1825) (proposed by Coppins in Taxon 38: 499-501. 1989). Votes: 13: 1:0 (recommended). The original description of the genus Micarea Fr., on a herbarium label, is regarded as valid (with a diagnosis as required by Art. 32.2, and with definite acceptance as required by Art. 34.1, see also Art. 33, Ex. 2). Therefore conservation is necessary to correct this overlooked original misuse of the name by Fries himself.

(962) Conserve Cryptosphaeria Ces. & De Not. against Cryptosphaeria Grev. (proposed by Rappaz in Taxon 38: 664. 1989). Votes: 13: 1: 0 (recommended). In addition to the arguments of the proposal, it is noted that Cryptosphaeria Grev. was superfluous when published, as it included Circinostroma Gray and Exormato- stoma Gray. This means that the type must be listed as conserved.

(968) Conserve Pulvinula Boud. against Pulparia P. Karst. (proposed by Dissing & al. in Taxon 39: 130-131. 1990). Votes: 11: 3:1 (recommended). Pulparia P. Karst. has been used (incorrectly!) since 1971 for a different group of somewhat similar (at least spherical-spored) species by Korf and many other authors. Although Pulvinula Boud. probably only has about 25 species, failure to conserve the name would result not only in about 25 name changes but also in the use of the name Pulparia for a genus very different from that to which it has been applied for the last 20 years.

(973) Conserve Sarcoscypha (Fr.) Boud. with a conserved type, S. coccinea (proposed by Korf & Harrington in Taxon 39: 342-343. 1990). Votes: 6:8:0 (not recommended). The Committee also wishes to accept Sarcoscypha with S. coccinea as type, but finds that Clements & Shear's lectotypification with this species name can be upheld under Art. 7.20. Invalidly published names, such as Martius's (1817) Peziza "tribus" Sarcoscyphi, are nomenclaturally nonexistent (Art. 12). According to Art. 46.3, the correct author citation is Peziza "tribus" Sarcoscypha Fr. Cconservation is thus unnecessary.

Acknowledgements I close thisreport with thanks to E. Parmastoand T. W. Kuyperfor editorial assistance. 118 FEBRUARY 1993

Literaturecited Burdsall,H. H. & Larsen,M. J. 1983. On the recent proposalto conserve HyphodontiaJ. Erikss. againstKnieffiella [sic!] Karst.Mycotaxon 17: 513-516. Bourdot,H. & Galzin, A. 1928. Hymenomycetesde France. Sceaux. Donk, M. A. 1956. The generic names proposedfor Hymenomycetes- V "Hydnaceae".Taxon 5: 69-80. - 1957. The generic names proposed for Hymenomycetes - VII "Thelephoraceae".Taxon 6: 17-28, 68-85. - 1967. Notes on Europeanpolypores - II. Persoonia 5: 47-130. - 1969. On the typificationof Hexagonia Pollini per Fr. Taxon 18: 663-666. Eriksson, J. & Hjortstam,K. 1983. Hyphodontiaversus Grandinia and some other actual problems in corticiology. Windahlia12-13: 3-17. Fries, E. M. 1828. Elenchusfungorum,2. Greifswald. - 1838. Epicrisis systematismycologici, seu synopsis Hymenomycetum.Uppsala & Lund. Julich,W. 1982. Studies in resupinateBasidiomycetes - VII. Int. J. Mycol. Lichenol. 1(1): 27-37. - 1983. (706)-(707) Proposalsto emend entries underTomentella, nom. cons., and to add nomina rejiciendato Craterellus, nom. cons. with discussions of other old generic names for Aphyllo- phorales(Basidiomycetes). Taxon 32: 480-484. 1984. Neotypificationof Hydnumbarba-jovis Bull. : Fr. Persoonia 12: 307-315. KauffmannFidalgo, M. E. P. 1968. Typificationof the genus Hexagona. Taxon 17: 37-43. Kreisel, H. 1969: Grundziigeeines natiirlichenSystems der Pilze. Lehre. Pouzar, Z. 1982. The problem of the correct name of Vararia granulosa (Lachnocladiaceae). Ceska Mykol. 36: 72-76. Romagnesi, H. 1990. Etude sur les Lepiotes (= Macrolepiota) du "groupeprocera". Bull. Tri- mestriel Soc. Mycol. France 106(3): (68).